Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
environment, some big market changes, but you have a management team now who has a handle on the problems, who knows what to do. we've got a plan to fix this company. and i think investors have to decide, gee, do they think that hp can turn this ship around? do they believe in the management team? do they believe in our employees? do they believe that customers want hp to win, which i can tell you they do. and do they believe in the product lineup? we spent quite a bit of time yesterday at our analysts day talking about the coming products in each of our divisions. we showed our new pc lineup. we showed -- talked about our multifunction printers. we talked about ink in the office, ink advantage. we talked about our new, very energy efficient arm-based servers that i think could revolutionize the server market. we talked about three par and storage as well as we're the leader, really, now in the development of sdm, software-defined networking. so products are going to be a really important part of how we bring hp back. and investors got to look at that whole story and say, gee, do i think this
mass-oriented environments where it's pegboard and they point you to aisle four, go find it yourself. we've done research that shows in certain categories, especially foundation, the consumer shop en masse, she spends more than when she buys in prestige where she buys in the store to the exact match foundation. the value proposition is around service which is why in this market, in north america, very high percentage of the total beauty business that's done in prestige like macy's because of that service proposition and a relatively low, absolute value differential in the price point. >> we continue to see companies go in and have difficulty in china. one company told us last week that western companies are going into china with western views about the chinese consumer and their loyalty and they're finding that that consumer passes them by in different ways. are there lessons you've already figured out on that front? >> we've been doing business in asia for 30, 40 years. and we first started in japan in the early '70s, then expanded into korea and hong kong. we've been in china doing
, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. i have a cold... i took dayquil, but i still have a runny nose. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't work on runny noses. what? [ male announcer ] it doesn't have an antihistamine. really? [ male announcer ] really. alka-seltzer plus cold and cough fights your worst cold symptoms, plus has a fast acting antihistamine to relieve your runny nose. [ sighs ] thank you! [ male announcer ] you're welcome. that's the cold truth! [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus. ♪ oh what a relief it is! ♪ [ male announcer ] try new alka-seltzer plus severe allergy to treat allergy symptoms, plus sinus congestion, and pain. and those well grounded. for what's around this corner... a
that support such a move? >> think the baseline for us is essentially more of the same, but in an environment in which earnings are still pretty good and interest rates are still very, very low. i think the baseline forecast does support higher equity prices from here. i do think it's quite bimobile. i think that the alternative scenario to the baseline is one that's significantly worse because we do get a much bigger hit from the fiscal side, but on the baseline, it's supportive. >> i'm really quite confused here and the economy created 114,000 jobs and there's so much noise about the various aspects of the survey. and i'm not sure. 114,000 jobs create side bad, isn't it? that's very, very disappointing. >> it's lackluster, i would say. >> don't we have to -- typically say we have to generate 200,000 to deal what's happening with the population. isn't that usually where we are? why are we not there today? >> to keep the unemployment rate stable you need about $100 and the participation doesn't change. anything over 100,000 will push it over time. under 14 it would be extremely slowly so that
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4